Camera blocks take internal volume. Smaller phones have less internal volume to spend - while still having to pack all the non-negotiables like the modem and the SoC into it. Something's got to give. And no one want that something to be the battery life going down to 6 hours.
Volume constraints are bad enough for "normal" models. "Minis" have it way worse.
The iPhone Air's SOC demonstrates that they could compact the actual SOC portion substantially. Add a bit of thickness back for the battery, and they could have a Mini with space for a decent camera and decent battery life. Remove the camera bump by making it a uniform thickness and the battery life would be fine.
But we already know that they can make a smaller iPhone with everything.
The iPhone 6 was a decade ago and was smaller in all dimensions than an iPhone 17 and had a perfectly acceptable battery life. Since then, they have removed headphone jacks and buttons, batteries have gotten more power dense, chips have gotten more efficient, etc.
It’s the camera and Face ID. The camera on the iPhone 6 is nowhere near as capable current cameras. Even the much improved camera on the last iPhone SE was considered a huge issue by most people. Cameras are too important to go back to something that thin. The current Air is leaps and bounds better in every way to the iPhone 6 but it doesn’t sell. Why? The battery life and camera. Imagine shrinking the iPhone Air and having even less battery life. Critics would howl and even fewer people would buy it.
Smaller phones can’t fit as much stuff in them as larger phones. Shrink the phone and something has to give. People in the aggregate do not want to make those compromises unless the price is noticeably less. But then it can’t have any of the premium features that are expected from Apple. Small phones are compromises that don’t pay off for Apple.
Same, I look longingly at the Samsung Flip and I'd buy one in a heartbeat if only it had the camera system from the Ultra. I'll even pay the Ultra price+extra for the foldable function.
But right now it's in a space where you're paying extra for the fact that it's a foldable, but it feels....budget in its specs? Like...how does that work?
> They confused "smaller" with "budget" though
Apple is in the luxury business.
I miss the time when smaller was considered more advanced
Camera blocks take internal volume. Smaller phones have less internal volume to spend - while still having to pack all the non-negotiables like the modem and the SoC into it. Something's got to give. And no one want that something to be the battery life going down to 6 hours.
Volume constraints are bad enough for "normal" models. "Minis" have it way worse.
The iPhone Air's SOC demonstrates that they could compact the actual SOC portion substantially. Add a bit of thickness back for the battery, and they could have a Mini with space for a decent camera and decent battery life. Remove the camera bump by making it a uniform thickness and the battery life would be fine.
But we already know that they can make a smaller iPhone with everything.
The iPhone 6 was a decade ago and was smaller in all dimensions than an iPhone 17 and had a perfectly acceptable battery life. Since then, they have removed headphone jacks and buttons, batteries have gotten more power dense, chips have gotten more efficient, etc.
It’s the camera and Face ID. The camera on the iPhone 6 is nowhere near as capable current cameras. Even the much improved camera on the last iPhone SE was considered a huge issue by most people. Cameras are too important to go back to something that thin. The current Air is leaps and bounds better in every way to the iPhone 6 but it doesn’t sell. Why? The battery life and camera. Imagine shrinking the iPhone Air and having even less battery life. Critics would howl and even fewer people would buy it.
Smaller phones can’t fit as much stuff in them as larger phones. Shrink the phone and something has to give. People in the aggregate do not want to make those compromises unless the price is noticeably less. But then it can’t have any of the premium features that are expected from Apple. Small phones are compromises that don’t pay off for Apple.
Reading this on my 6s, and it’s still great.
Same, I look longingly at the Samsung Flip and I'd buy one in a heartbeat if only it had the camera system from the Ultra. I'll even pay the Ultra price+extra for the foldable function.
But right now it's in a space where you're paying extra for the fact that it's a foldable, but it feels....budget in its specs? Like...how does that work?